1) Consistently get to nationally-televised BCS bowls2) Be a team that fans from other conferences know and think about

It has nothing to do with national titles.

November 13th, 2013, 9:56 am

aManNamedSuh

National Champion

Joined: July 14th, 2005, 11:58 amPosts: 865

Re: UofM vs. MSU

I get it, mines just different, which is cool. No worries, I understand your point of view.

November 13th, 2013, 10:49 am

Blueskies

QB Coach

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 3084

Re: UofM vs. MSU

Well, I don't understand your point of view because it doesn't make any sense. You said Michigan hasn't been nationally relevant since 98 -- does that mean the only teams that are nationally relevant are those who have won the national championship within the last year? If so, then there would only be one or two nationally relevant programs at any given time, effectively rendering the term meaningless. Just saying "defending national champions" would make much more sense.

November 13th, 2013, 11:07 am

The Legend

HC – Jim Caldwell

Joined: February 11th, 2005, 3:01 pmPosts: 4699Location: WSU

Re: UofM vs. MSU

congrats to a great win for sparty and dominating the rivalry for the past 5 or 6 years. still if i had to pick a program to invest into the future id pick UM. They have the tradition and the boosters and therefore the money and the means. sparty has a nice thing going with dantonio but he lost 6+ games in 3 of his first 6 seasons something that just isnt acceptable at michigan and part of the reason for the sparty success is richrod alienating recruiting pipelines in the midwest. UM right now is finally transitioning to hoke/borges offensive preferences after using the spread with rich rod's personnel in there first two seasons. they ll still be young a year from now and will still have problems with a young line and a lack of talent at WR but the defense should still be strong. my biggest concern right now with UM isnt Borges or Gardner or the OL, its Shane Morris - I was excitied when they landed him and saw him play a couple times in HS but just didnt think he was that good despite being on a pretty talented team. Its obviously very early for him but I ve heard some whispers that he s not really what the program expected.

I dont think MSU football is going to sink anytime soon but there will be some challenges in East Lansing too losing more NFL talent from the defense and possibly losing Narduzzi as his stock is at its highest right now. the offensive line loses some experienced starters and there isnt a lot of great talent at RB and WR right now though dantonio s staff has done a very good job of managing those problems and developing unheralded players over the years. again it helps that the program there is more understanding of needing to take some lumps for better days ahead.

Last edited by The Legend on November 13th, 2013, 12:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

November 13th, 2013, 11:35 am

aManNamedSuh

National Champion

Joined: July 14th, 2005, 11:58 amPosts: 865

Re: UofM vs. MSU

Blueskies wrote:

Well, I don't understand your point of view because it doesn't make any sense. You said Michigan hasn't been nationally relevant since 98 -- does that mean the only teams that are nationally relevant are those who have won the national championship within the last year? If so, then there would only be one or two nationally relevant programs at any given time, effectively rendering the term meaningless. Just saying "defending national champions" would make much more sense.

I'm saying to be nationally relevant you need to be in the picture of national championship, which they haven't been seen 98. Michigan has and will continue to be a regional program with flashes of being the best regional program but won't be in the realistic national championship picture.

November 13th, 2013, 11:55 am

The Legend

HC – Jim Caldwell

Joined: February 11th, 2005, 3:01 pmPosts: 4699Location: WSU

Re: UofM vs. MSU

aManNamedSuh wrote:

Blueskies wrote:

Well, I don't understand your point of view because it doesn't make any sense. You said Michigan hasn't been nationally relevant since 98 -- does that mean the only teams that are nationally relevant are those who have won the national championship within the last year? If so, then there would only be one or two nationally relevant programs at any given time, effectively rendering the term meaningless. Just saying "defending national champions" would make much more sense.

I'm saying to be nationally relevant you need to be in the picture of national championship, which they haven't been seen 98. Michigan has and will continue to be a regional program with flashes of being the best regional program but won't be in the realistic national championship picture.

2006

November 13th, 2013, 12:22 pm

Blueskies

QB Coach

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 3084

Re: UofM vs. MSU

Well then, by your own definition, Michigan was nationally relevant in 2006, as the BCS computers wanted them in the NCG. That team was chock full of NFL talent (Leon Hall, Breaston, Jake Long, Manningham, Chad Henne, Mesko, etc) and the program was still at a very good point back then. I would even argue that you could extend it 2007, as although that season was very disappointing, Michigan still did well in the Big 10 and crushed a NCG-calibur team in Florida.

Swinging it back to Michigan's rebuilding -- I simply fail to understand why people continue to support Hoke. Prior to Michigan, he had a losing record; he never won a conference championship. And this is coaching in joke conferences like the MAC and the Mountain West. No other major program would've hired this guy. At Michigan, his teams have gotten worse over time, he can't effectively manage the clock, and his supposedly amazing coordinators look like bozos (even Mattison doesn't look so good). If he guts his entire offensive coaching staff at the end of the season, I'll respect him, but I think he was clearly a bad hire, and it's going to be more apparent over the next year or two.

November 13th, 2013, 12:35 pm

The Legend

HC – Jim Caldwell

Joined: February 11th, 2005, 3:01 pmPosts: 4699Location: WSU

Re: UofM vs. MSU

Blueskies wrote:

Well then, by your own definition, Michigan was nationally relevant in 2006, as the BCS computers wanted them in the NCG. That team was chock full of NFL talent (Leon Hall, Breaston, Jake Long, Manningham, Chad Henne, Mesko, etc) and the program was still at a very good point back then. I would even argue that you could extend it 2007, as although that season was very disappointing, Michigan still did well in the Big 10 and crushed a NCG-calibur team in Florida.

Swinging it back to Michigan's rebuilding -- I simply fail to understand why people continue to support Hoke. Prior to Michigan, he had a losing record; he never won a conference championship. And this is coaching in joke conferences like the MAC and the Mountain West. No other major program would've hired this guy. At Michigan, his teams have gotten worse over time, he can't effectively manage the clock, and his supposedly amazing coordinators look like bozos (even Mattison doesn't look so good). If he guts his entire offensive coaching staff at the end of the season, I'll respect him, but I think he was clearly a bad hire, and it's going to be more apparent over the next year or two.

maybe bc right from the start he restored connections with boosters, alumni and local recruiting connections. he represented UM football the way those people remembered and wanted it. rich rod s UM was on a nose dive, he would show up at hs football camps with what appeared to be purposeful disrespect. why bother even show up if you are just going to sit there with your hand in your pants slouched in a chair? cant get up and greet people and act interested like dantonio or the mac coaches, etc? rich rod just didnt get it. So No 1 you have the contrast with richrod - hoke has restored the off the field things that make UM football what it was and its a big relief to people who understand how important that is. its not just about on the field stuff. No 2 - he took richrod's team that won only 6 big ten games in 3 years and won 6 big ten games his first year finishing 11-2 overall. he showed the ability to adapt and to squeeze the most out of that team. No 3 - when looking at this hire as a succes or not, you need to look at a college coaching hire at a place like UM as a long term hire not a short term one, the time to judge is at 4-5 years provided there are signs of the program being on the right track along the way. just bc nick saban can win a championship in 3 years doesnt mean everyone else can also...

finally, you may be right that hoke and the staff are not the coach to get them to another national championship. there are signs of that being true but I would argue that coach wasnt in the least bit recognizable at the time that Hoke was hired. Hoke was the right hire, bc Les Miles wasnt going to come aboard and Jim Harbaugh had both dreams of the NFL and had burned some bridges with past comments. hoke has righted the ship on the recruiting trail and within the alumni base, restoring program support - based on that his hire represents progress and is a success. if he doesnt make more progress on the field after 5 seasons than they may consider passing the baton to someone else. im not sure national championsip is the measuring stick bc its unrealistic when the gold standard coach at the school never won one.

November 13th, 2013, 1:42 pm

Blueskies

QB Coach

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 3084

Re: UofM vs. MSU

Just saying "Hoke isn't Rich Rod" isn't an effective excuse.

A NC may be unrealistic, but IMO, beating OSU at least 50% of the time should be the goal. If Michigan's coaching staff can't do that, then there are problems. I don't think Hoke is in the same league as Urban Meyer, and will consistently lose to him in the coming seasons.

November 13th, 2013, 1:51 pm

kdsberman

League MVP

Joined: February 20th, 2007, 10:51 pmPosts: 3485Location: Saginaw, MI

Re: UofM vs. MSU

Blueskies wrote:

Swinging it back to Michigan's rebuilding -- I simply fail to understand why people continue to support Hoke. Prior to Michigan, he had a losing record; he never won a conference championship.

This is NOT taking a shot at UofM, but when they hired him I remember everyone saying it was a great hire because "He's a Michigan man". I failed to understand the logic in that and also wondered why they hired him considering his coaching record.

November 13th, 2013, 2:59 pm

The Legend

HC – Jim Caldwell

Joined: February 11th, 2005, 3:01 pmPosts: 4699Location: WSU

Re: UofM vs. MSU

Blueskies wrote:

Just saying "Hoke isn't Rich Rod" isn't an effective excuse.

A NC may be unrealistic, but IMO, beating OSU at least 50% of the time should be the goal. If Michigan's coaching staff can't do that, then there are problems. I don't think Hoke is in the same league as Urban Meyer, and will consistently lose to him in the coming seasons.

i agree that is the goal, beating ohio state and winning the big ten around that % of the time 40-50% of the time. Hoke s doing the heavy lifting of rebuilding and actually improving the recruiting pipeline s and restoring alumni support. if he s not the best man to squeeze out tough victories he can be replaced by someone who can take that next step. maybe les miles wants to finally leave the sec whatever it is, some of the things that are happening at UM right now are good for the program and might set the program up to take the next step by another coach. if thats how it works out, then hoke s tenure isnt necesarily a failure.